M
mattp0625
Guest
You edited out the part you didn't likeNo LOL so it adds lots and lots that is not in the Bible without any evidence whatsoever.
dont ruin my moment with Jim!
You edited out the part you didn't likeNo LOL so it adds lots and lots that is not in the Bible without any evidence whatsoever.
Brother Jackson,
The bible does put Peter with Mark
History and the bible put Mark in Rome
Several ancient historians put Peter in Rome including Tertullian
We know Paul was with the apostles and later ended up in RomE
1, Can you show me what part of the bible tell Mark and Peter in Rome brother?
2. Can you show me Peter was in Rome and it before Paul in ?
3. On origin Clement Letter Professor Michael said that this letter never mention Peter and Paul in Rome together.
In this letter Clement give example 7 saint in the old testament and 7 in the NT that suffered because of Jealousy.
Both Peter and Paul is victim of Jealousy. But not mention they kill because of Jealousy or they reside in Rome.
This letter is to address the church of Corinthian not to jealous each other.
Than Catholic said this letter tell /proved Paul and Peter reside in Rome.
It indicate the direction of lie, and we have to look more carefully about the history of Peter in catholic version.
I suggest you read the link I provide in the previous post brother.
For your own salvation, don't take it lightly.
The church that Jesus founded was not in Rome but of all places Jerusalem.I'm thinking Jesus made a distinction in Mt 16:19 between Peter (petros, small rock) and
this rock (petra, mass of rock) because this rock is Jesus himself (Mt 21:42; Eph 2:20-21;
Ac 4:11; Ro 9:32; 1Pe 2:6) on whom the church is built.
It is the body of Christ, and no one else on earth, which has the keys to the kingdom of heaven; i.e.,
the gospel, binding and loosing, in the preaching of the gospel, what has been bound in heaven and
what has been loosed in heaven (Jn 3:18, 36).
Peter made a decision to replace Judas but it was not a decision that he received from God. Jesus later filled Judas' place with Paul then Saul of Tarsus. The apostles appointed by men amounted to little. Paul however changed the world with his preaching of Christ.Nothing to see here, move along
- Acts 1: Peter decides that Judas should be replaced.
- Acts 2: Peter speaks to the crowds at Pentecost and converts thousands.
- Acts 3: Peter heals a lame man and again addresses the crowds.
- Acts 4: Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addresses the Jewish rulers, priests, and scribes.
- Acts 5: Peter speaks the death sentence upon Ananias and Sapphira.
- Acts 8: Peter rebukes Simon.
- Acts 9: Saul's conversion; Peter raises the dead and heals the paralyzed.
- Acts 10: Peter, at God's direct command, opens the door to the Gentiles.
- Acts 11: The Judaizers came to Peter to complain.
- Acts 12: Peter is arrested and saved by an angel.
- Acts 15: Peter decides the issue at the Council of Jerusalem, and after he finishes speaking, "all the assembly kept silence."
- Peter walked on water
- Peter called for a replacement to Judas
- Peter settled the issue at the Council of Jerusalem
- Peter was appointed, by Jesus, as shepherd of Jesus' flock
- Jesus prayed specifically for Peter
- Peter spoke for the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost
- Peter received a special vision from God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles
- Peter was given a special revelation about Jesus being the Messiah
- Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
- Jesus paid the temple tax for Himself and Peter only
- Paul comes to Peter to consult with him
- Peter generally speaks for all the Apostles
- Peter spoke judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira
- Peter has his name changed to "Rock."
Nothing to see here, move along
Check out: Col 4:10, 2 Tim 4:11, 1 Peter 5:13, Acts 15:37, and Acts 27. These connect Paul to Mark and Mark to Peter in Rome.
Then check the several historians who put Peter in Rome like Tertullian (200 AD)
Nothing to see here, move along
Nothing to see here. No leader of the Apostles or Church of Christ. Nope nope.
</quote>
Yes you are right. Peter was not the leader of the church of Christ. He was a humble Apostle who had been taught by Jesus that to seek pre-eminence was a gross sin. He counted others better than himself
I really do not see what Peter has to do even with the primitive Roman church. History demonstrates that he was only in Rome a short while (if at all), under arrest and waiting to be executed. He had been in Babylon and elsewhere as, like a true Apostle, he continued his roving commission. If he had remained in Rome he would have disobeyed Christ.
<quote> Acts 1: Peter decides that Judas should be replaced. </quote>
This is a typical misunderstanding. He did not decide. He suggested it to the Apostles using sola scriptura and they all agreed. THEY put forward, THEY prayed. THEY cast lots. It was a joint effort.
<quote>Acts 2: Peter speaks to the crowds at Pentecost and converts thousands. </quote>
But the other eleven were proclaiming the truth in tongues, someone had to take the lead, and as we know Peter was impulsive. Peter didn't convert anyone, it was God by His Holy Spirit Who did it. Note How God wrote His word so as to diminish Peter's part, 'Peter standing with the eleven lifted up his voice and addressed them'. The message was from the eleven as well.
The people devoted themselves to the APOSTLES' teaching (not Peter's). Many wonders and signs were wrought through the APOSTLES. It was a joint effort.
<quote>Acts 3: Peter heals a lame man and again addresses the crowds.</quote>
Notice how the Roman Catholic church omits JOHN's presence. Peter and John acted TOGETHER. Peter was simply the best orator, not the leader.
<quote>Acts 4: Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addresses the Jewish rulers, priests, and scribes. </quote>
Here we have a typical Roman Catholic exaltation of an individual. Who were speaking to the people? THEY were (4.1). Both Peter and John took part. And they were BOTH subsequently arrested. And before the tribunal 'they saw the boldness of PETER AND JOHN.' In verse 19 both Peter AND JOHN answered them. In verse 33 'with great power THE APOSTLES gave their testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.' Only the Roman Catholics put the emphasis on Peter because of their false ideas about his connection with Rome. Luke puts no emphasis on Peter.
<quote> Acts 5: Peter speaks the death sentence upon Ananias and Sapphira.</quote>
Note that Ananias laid his gift at 'the APOSTLES' feet, not at Peter's feet.. Peter often acted as spokesman but he was NOT the leader. Peter did NOT speak the death sentence on Ananias. He simply rebuked him for what he had done. It was GOD Who passed the death sentence (on the other hand the Roman Catholics do seem to see Peter as God so who knows?)
What followed this was that many wonders and signs were done by the APOSTLES and they were all speaking in the Temple. Luke was not glorifying Peter. When all the Apostles were put in prison and were brought to trial it was 'Peter and all the Apostles' who gave answer. And in the Temple ALL THE APOSTLES preached and taught.
In 6.2 it was THE TWELVE who summoned 'the body of the disciples. See how Luke is avoiding glorifying Peter?
And suddenly Stephen has taken over. Is he now the leader of the Apostles? OF COURSE NOT His taking the lead does not make him the leader.
Then PHILIP takes over. Has he become leader? Of course not.
<quote> Acts 8: Peter rebukes Simon. </quote.
When THE APOSTLES heard what had happened THEY sent Peter and JOHN. The Apostles were in joint charge, not Peter. Luke is stressing the fact. Peter replied to Simon because Simon spoke to him, not because he was 'the leader'
More to follow.
Among those I know who have converted are two Catholic ex-nuns and a Catholic ex-priest.I'm asking to hear his/her testimony about converting to the Truth. Won't you give someone that chance? This is real. I'll PM you and give you my contact info.
Acts references Italy. No one denies Paul was in Rome in prison.
i guess you must reject all historical writing everywhere. How can it be true if it was written after it happened ?
Brother Jackson,
Check out: Col 4:10, 2 Tim 4:11, 1 Peter 5:13, Acts 15:37, and Acts 27. These connect Paul to Mark and Mark to Peter in Rome.
Then check the several historians who put Peter in Rome like Tertullian (200 AD)
got it! Not the leader. Just impulsive!! That must be why Jesus Christ names him Rock and gave him the keys to heaven